Shareholder activism on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues in the U.S. underwent a dramatic rise in the early 2020s – and a notable pullback by 2025. In annual general meetings held each January–May from 2021 through 2025, investors filed hundreds of ESG-themed shareholder proposals, ranging from climate change and human rights to data privacy and diversity. The number of these proposals surged to record levels by 2023, then declined sharply in 2024 and 2025, even as sustainability challenges remain urgent. This post analyzes five years of data on ESG shareholder proposals, examining what drove the early surge, why 2025 saw a downturn, and what it all means for the future of shareholder-driven sustainability action.

ESG proposals – once a niche – have become a mainstream feature of proxy seasons. Over the past decade, the volume of environmental and social shareholder resolutions “exploded, surpassing the governance and compensation topics that had dominated the discourse in the mid-2010s” (​corpgov.law.harvard.edu). By the late 2010s and early 2020s, investors were leveraging proposals to press companies on issues like climate risk, workforce diversity, and corporate political spending. These proposals serve as a bellwether of investor priorities, and their trajectory from 2021 to 2025 tells a story of both growing momentum and emerging headwinds in the ESG movement.

The Surge and the Slide: 2021–2025 in Numbers

Table: Total number of ESG-related shareholder proposals (Jan–May meetings each year). Proposals peaked in 2023 before declining in 2024 and 2025 (data from Root Intelligence analysis).

In the 2021 proxy season (meetings in Jan–May 2021), shareholders filed roughly 176 ESG-related proposals at U.S. companies. This was a significant number but relatively modest compared to what followed. In 2022, as investor activism intensified and U.S. regulators adopted a more permissive stance on social-policy resolutions, the count jumped to 270 proposals, and 2023 saw a further spike to 322 – an 83% increase from 2021. This steep rise coincided with guidance issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in late 2021 that made it harder for companies to exclude shareholder proposals on “ordinary business” grounds, unleashing a wave of new filings​ (glasslewis.com). ESG proposals had definitively “gone mainstream,” dominating many annual meetings.

However, by 2024 the trend started to reverse. The Jan–May 2024 proposal count dipped to 290, and in 2025 the figure dropped further to 207 – the lowest in this five-year span. Reuters reported a similar pullback: sustainability-focused investors filed 355 proposals for 2025 meetings as of February 21, down from 536 at the same point in 2024 and 542 in 2023​(reuters.com). In other words, after cresting in 2022–2023, the wave of ESG proposals receded. Notably, the average support these proposals received from shareholders had also fallen from earlier highs – a peak in 2021 when many ESG resolutions were winning unprecedented backing – to more modest levels in 2023–2024​ (corpgov.law.harvard.edu). (In 2021, a few ESG issues enjoyed record-high votes, but as more proposals flooded ballots in subsequent years – including some viewed as too prescriptive – average support percentage dropped​ (glasslewis.com)

Why the downturn by 2025? We delve into the causes shortly – including regulatory shifts and political backlash – but it’s important to recognize that the decline in number does not equal lack of interest: many investors remain actively engaged on these topics. As we’ll see, the dip reflects changing tactics and external pressures more than any wholesale abandonment of ESG concerns.

Evolving Priorities: Which Issues Gained or Lost Steam?

The ESG umbrella covers a wide range of topics. A detailed breakdown of proposals from 2021–2025 reveals how investor priorities shifted over time. Some proposal themes saw high growth and then a fall-off, while others steadily gained momentum. The dataset categorizes proposals into themes such as Climate Change, Equality (diversity and inclusion), Human Rights, Animal Welfare, Data Privacy & AI, Lobbying (political activity), Nature (environment/biodiversity), and other Social issues.

 Figure: U.S. ESG shareholder proposals by theme. Most categories saw a decline by 2025 – notably climate and human rights – while a few areas like data/AI and nature-related proposals grew. (Source: Root Intelligence data)

Climate Change has been one of the single largest category of proposals in most years – investors filed 93 climate-related resolutions in early 2023, up from 35 in 2021. These ranged from requests for emissions reduction targets and climate risk reporting to “Say on Climate” votes. Climate proposals alone made up nearly one-third of all ESG proposals at the 2023 peak. However, by early 2025 the number of climate proposals had dropped by more than half (to just 43). This reflects a consolidation: after a burst of climate activism in 2022–23, some proponents pulled back on filing new climate resolutions in 2024–25 (reasons included both strategic recalibration and less receptive signals from regulators and investors, as discussed later). Climate change remains a top concern – in fact, it still dominated many high-profile votes in 2024​ (thomsonreuters.com) – but the tactics evolved. For example, advocates began fine-tuning proposals to make them more company-specific and financially grounded. (One climate resolution at Jack in the Box, highlighting how the company lagged a peer on emissions disclosure, earned 57% support in 2024​ (reuters.com​reuters.com), demonstrating that well-crafted climate proposals can win majority approval.)

Human capital and diversity issues were another major focus. Proposals under the Equality theme – covering topics like workforce diversity reports, pay equity, and civil rights audits – rose from 36 in 2021 to 59 in 2023, then eased to 44 by 2025. Similarly, Human Rights proposals (addressing supply chain labor standards, human rights impact assessments, etc.) climbed to 39 in 2024 before plummeting to 17 in 2025. In the early 2020s, investors (often coordinated by groups like the NYC Comptroller or advocacy nonprofits) pressed companies on racial equity and DEI commitments, especially after 2020’s societal reckoning. These efforts remained strong through 2023 – proposals on climate and “human capital management” were key drivers of the surge in shareholder activism​ (corpgov.law.harvard.edu) – but saw a tapering as political pushback against DEI emerged by 2024–2025. Notably, even as fewer formal proposals went to ballots in 2025, many companies were engaging with investors privately on diversity and equity concerns to preempt public fights.

Among environmental topics beyond climate, “Nature” proposals (e.g. on biodiversity, deforestation, plastic pollution) started from a low base but steadily grew – from just 8 filings in early 2021 to 15 by 2025. This suggests a rising investor awareness of natural capital issues. Animal Welfare resolutions (e.g. on farm animal treatment or animal testing) remained a niche category, numbering in the single digits most years. They peaked at 14 proposals in 2024, then fell to 7 in 2025.

On the governance side of ESG, corporate political influence has been a perennial concern for shareholders. The Lobbying category – which includes proposals asking companies to disclose lobbying expenditures or political donations, and to ensure alignment of lobbying with stated climate goals – consistently logged dozens of filings each year. These proposals actually increased from 72 in 2021 to 94 in 2024, reflecting investor frustration with opaque corporate political activity. In 2025, lobbying-related proposals dipped to 59, still accounting for a significant share of total ESG resolutions that year. Data Privacy & AI is a newer category that saw notable growth: only 1–3 proposals on data security or AI ethics appeared in the early years, but by 2024 there were 8, and 2025 saw 11 proposals on data and AI issues. This rise parallels the growing public scrutiny of Big Tech, AI ethics, and consumer privacy – shareholders are increasingly pushing companies for transparency and responsible use of algorithms and customer data. Indeed, climate, political influence, and AI were singled out as three of the top ESG issues in the 2024 proxy season (​thomsonreuters.com).

In summary, the five-year period saw climate change and diversity-related proposals dominate the agenda, together comprising a large portion of filings – especially during the 2021–2023 surge. These two areas then saw some decline by 2025 (partly due to external pushback). Meanwhile, emerging issues like AI and biodiversity gained traction, even as overall proposal volumes fell. The landscape in 2025 was somewhat more consolidated: fewer total proposals, with climate and equality still significant but not as overwhelmingly as before, and a broader mix of topics as investors explore new angles of ESG risk.

Why the Decline in 2025? Key Factors

By 2025, ESG shareholder proposals faced a more challenging environment, resulting in fewer filings. Several interrelated factors contributed to this decline:

• Shifting SEC Rules: Regulatory changes played a major role. In early 2025, the U.S. SEC – under new leadership – revised its guidance to make it easier for companies to exclude shareholder resolutions, effectively undoing the pro-shareholder 2021 policy (​reuters.com). Previously, if a proposal raised a significant “social policy” issue, it was harder for a company to omit it from the ballot. The 2025 guidance scrapped that emphasis, returning to a case-by-case review and broadening what counts as micromanagement​ (reuters.com​reuters.com). This gave corporate management “enormous latitude to claim that a proposal micromanages if it asks for specifics,” as one shareholder attorney noted​ (reuters.com). Anticipating this tougher stance, some activists didn’t bother filing resolutions they expected would be thrown out. Indeed, concern that regulators might not let certain proposals go to a vote was cited by activists as a reason they dialed back in 2025​ (reuters.com).

• Political Backlash and ESG “Pushback”: The rise of ESG investing provoked a counter-movement in U.S. politics. Throughout 2023–2024, several Republican politicians and state officials campaigned against “woke capitalism,” criticizing big asset managers for supporting ESG causes​ (reuters.com). By 2024, a wave of anti-ESG shareholder proposals also appeared – resolutions intentionally crafted to challenge companies’ DEI or climate initiatives (for example, asking a bank to report the “costs” of its racial equity programs). While the number of these anti-ESG proposals grew (94 were submitted in 2024, up from only a handful a few years prior), support for them remained minuscule (over 80% of anti-ESG proposals got under 3% support) (​glasslewis.com). Mainstream investors clearly rejected the anti-ESG agenda. However, the broader political atmosphere had an impact: large index fund managers became more cautious in supporting E&S proposals. Notably, BlackRock – the world’s biggest asset manager – supported only 4% of environmental and social resolutions in 2024, down from 6.7% in 2023 and nearly 47% back in 2020–21​ (reuters.com). Rival Vanguard reportedly backed zero environmental or social proposals in the 2024 season. This pullback by major funds was partly due to the politicization; under scrutiny from anti-ESG lawmakers, the big firms argued many shareholder resolutions were overly prescriptive or not economically justified​ (reuters.com). Knowing that the biggest shareholders were now often voting “No,” activist filers grew less optimistic about winning broad support – a key reason several “sustainability-minded shareholder activists filed fewer resolutions for 2025” (​reuters.com).

• Investors and Companies Finding New Ways: The changing climate prompted shifts in strategy for both proponents and corporate management. Many companies, hoping to avoid public clashes, became more willing to negotiate with shareholders behind closed doors. “Companies were more willing to have things not escalate,”observed Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, meaning management sometimes offered concessions or engagement in exchange for proponents withdrawing resolutions​ (reuters.com). This behind-the-scenes engagement reduced the number of proposals that ultimately went to a vote. (Interestingly, 2024 saw fewer shareholder proposals withdrawn than prior years​(corpgov.law.harvard.edu), suggesting tougher negotiation – but by 2025 the dynamic shifted, with companies keen to stay out of the political spotlight.) On the proponents’ side, some advocacy groups chose to pause or soften certain proposals. For example, As You Sow held off on filing some new diversity-related resolutions in late 2024, fearing they might “expose [companies] to possible retaliation”from an expected anti-ESG federal administration (​reuters.com). In other cases, investors pursued dialogue over resolutions – focusing on convincing boards that robust action on ESG issues is in shareholders’ long-term interest, without always resorting to a formal proposal.

• Regulatory Complexity and Liability Concerns: Paradoxically, the growing patchwork of ESG regulations also contributed to fewer shareholder proposals in 2024–2025. On one hand, regulatory momentum (like the EU’s due diligence laws or the prospect of SEC climate disclosure rules) meant companies had to improve ESG disclosures, which was a victory for proponents. On the other hand, if investors demanded even more than what new regulations required, it could put companies in a legally uncertain position. Some investors became more willing to “let companies off the hook” once a baseline of mandatory ESG reporting was in place, to avoid pushing firms into greater liability​ (thomsonreuters.com). Additionally, the divergence between jurisdictions – U.S. states adopting conflicting stances on ESG, the U.S. vs EU rules mismatch – created uncertainty (​thomsonreuters.com). Rather than force a company to take a stand via a shareholder vote, investors sometimes opted for private monitoring, giving management a bit of breathing room as long as they were making an effort to comply with evolving laws. In short, with governments starting to act (or at least debate action) on issues like climate risk, some shareholders pulled back on resolutions to see how the regulatory landscape unfolds.

These factors combined to produce the observable drop in proposal counts by 2025. It’s a landscape quite unlike 2022, when an energetic U.S. SEC and broad political support for ESG enabled a flood of new proposals. By mid-decade, greater political polarization and a less favorable SEC had cooled the pace of filings. Yet it’s crucial to note: investors have not given up on ESG issues – far from it. They are adapting their strategies to the new context.

Looking ahead, proponents may become more selective, focusing on quality over quantity of proposals, and building broader coalitions of support for the resolutions they do file. We may also see more collaboration – for example, investors working through initiatives like Climate Action 100+ or the Ceres Investor Network to press companies collectively, using both private negotiations and the threat of shareholder resolutions when necessary. If the political/regulatory pendulum swings again (as it often does), the stage could be set for another surge in ESG proposals in the future. In the meantime, investor activists will keep the flame alive through whatever means available – whether on the ballot or in the boardroom – to ensure companies are responsive to ESG risks and opportunities.

In conclusion, the 2021–2025 period taught us that progress is not linear. After a flurry of ESG proposals forced corporate America to pay attention, a backlash tested the resilience of this movement. Yet the fundamental drivers – investor concern about climate change, social justice, and good governance – are here to stay. Shareholder proposals remain a critical voice for sustainability. Even in a year of decline, they have continued to push the envelope (for instance, on emerging issues like AI ethics). As ESG advocates, we should view the current moment as an inflection point, not an endpoint. By learning from the past five years – the wins, the setbacks, and the shifting winds – shareholders can regroup and press forward with smarter, more impactful proposals that align long-term value with long-term values. The momentum behind responsible and sustainable business practices, fueled by engaged shareholders, is far from over. It’s simply entering a new phase – one in which creativity and perseverance will be key to keeping ESG issues at the forefront of corporate agendas.